June 25, 2011

Going outside traditional Democratic party lobbies to appeal to those on the other side who are open to our arguments was essential.... Governor Cuomo, by all accounts was magnificent at the politics and Mayor Bloomberg and critical Republicans and Democrats and all factions and groups in the gay movement - even HRC! - pulled together. That the most passionate opponent was a Democrat and the most powerful were Republicans helps scramble the attempt by the Christianist right to coopt conservatism for their reactionary theology.

It's a BFD because it also insists on maximal religious liberty for those who conscientiously oppose marriage equality. A gay rights movement that seeks to restrict any religious freedom is not worthy of the name. And it makes me glad that we largely avoided anything that looks like that strategy, and that last-minute negotiations were flexible enough to strengthen the protections for religious groups, churches, mosques, synagogues and the like. The gay rights movement is about expanding the boundaries of human freedom - and that must include religious freedom if it is to mean anything....

I don't know the details about the religious freedom protection in the bill, but I agree with Sullivan that's extremely important. I put up a quick post last night when the NY vote came in, and I read the comments this morning and saw a lot of fretting about government interference with religion. (For example, what happened to Catholic Charities in Massachusetts.)

160 comments:

The goofball left, represented by Sullivan's steroid fueled ravings, is so out of touch with the reality of traditional Christians in America.

I'll live with the legislature's decision.

The Christianist right! Jesus, Sullivan is a moron.

Do you know any practicing evangelicals, Althouse? You must not, if you keep giving credence to morons like Sullivan. He's living in a steroid induced fantasy world. Living on the coast in the middle of the nutjob left doesn't help either.

What about the freedom of, say, a wedding photographer who finds homosexual "marriage" repulsive and refuses a homosexual pair's request to photograph their wedding? Will his freedom not to be involved with this abomination be respected? Or any of the other ways people interact besides religion? Will those of us who find this whole homosexual movement to force the rest of us in society to treat it as if it was no different than heterosexuality have our freedom respected?

The pro-homosexual "marriage" group argues that it doesn't hurt anyone else if homosexuals are left alone to "marry". But the goal of the homosexual movement is not to be left alone. It's for society to be changed so that homosexuals can feel like their sexual behavior is just as normal as heterosexual behavior. And that will require that people who find it repulsive and abnormal be compelled to accept it.

This religious exception will be temporary. They will find that a lot of people are claiming a religious reason for wanting nothing to do with homosexual "marriage", and then they will have to get into a whole bunch of legal stuff about when someone is *really* refusing to involve themselves with homosexuals for religious reasons and when it's just because they're an evil bigot whose freedom doesn't need to be respected. And then, when they can, they will scrap the religious exception.

I feel most sorry for the innocent children who will be adopted into these perverted situations and be indoctrinated that they are wrong to feel uncomfortable that they have no mother or no father, that they SHOULD feel happy to have a pair of homosexuals as parent figures instead of what every child wants and needs, which is a mother and father.

The gay rights movement is about expanding the boundaries of human freedom...

You see, Althouse, I'd like to believe this, but I don't.

First, I know too many of the people who are behind this political agenda. I live in the midst of them. Expanding the boundaries of human freedom is really not what they are about. Explaining what they are really about would take a book length post, so I'm not going to do it.

Second, tradition exists for a reason. This issue is one humans have confronted for thousands of years. Humans didn't make the decisions they made regarding homosexuals for no reason. The reasons are quite complex, and once again would require a book length post to discuss.

I'll hope that the outcome is expanding the boundaries of human freedom. But, I have my doubts that that is what will actually happen.

Everything that MnMark said about gay marriage was already said when interracial marriage was legalized in America. People found (still find?)that to be "repulsive and abnormal." Even today comments (usually whispered) are made about how it isn't proper for children to be "indoctrinated" into thinking that inter-racial marriages are acceptable.

Here's one of the great ironies of the liberal bullshit. The intellectuals at the top of the liberal heap, which is intellectual Jews, do precisely what liberals always condemn... they tell their children to marry other Jews.

I'm not just making this up in response to the voices in my head.

When I was younger I dated Jewish girls. Their parents, who were always hyper-liberal for everybody else, told their daughters:

Screw around with the gentiles, but don't marry them. Marry a nice Jewish boy.

I suspect the religious freedom "guarantees" in the law will gradually evaporate by court decisions and perhaps legislative amendments over time, and NY will end up like Canada, litigating the criminality of hate crimes by churches.

The people most interested in mondernizing traditional customs seem to be the ones least interested in a diversity of views about what they mean for society.

If there is a downside to replacing the traditional meaning of marriage (other than yet another molehill for pundits to make a mountain out of) it will be young men being less interested in getting married.

The state can sanction it, the state can make the Pope perform it, the state can bake and sell wedding cakes, the church can perform ceremonies, the state can throw bridal showers, the state can make the children be bridesmaids and bridegrooms and flower girls and boys. The couple can wear rings and adopt children and hire surrogates. They can join the PTA and coach. They can divorce and sue for alimony. They can bicker and fight.

It is still not marriage. And all the king's horses and all the king's men will not make it so. And gay people know that.

There was a late night discussion on your blog about this. Basically the gay crowd here, while very polite, gave a big FU to religous institutions. Saying homosexual rights trumps religous civil rights.

Expanding liberty is a basic pro-life stance, because life in a safe community/family must precede actual liberty. The Gays need that safe community too. The fear among traditional evangelicals has been that in this process of extending the community's protection to gay practices, they are losing a basic liberty to practice a sola scriptura protestant religion in The New world unless they agree to renounce its teachings that Gay practices are not safe for the community. My hope is that all will show forbearance and not allow the new homosexual rights to become a wedge issue. Frankly, the issue was being used as an Anti-Christian standard. Stay tuned.

Actually interracial marriage have always been accepted by world society. Moses was married to woman of color. In the late 1800 and early 1900s, some racist societies passed many laws restricting African-American rights, including the right to marry a white person. But overall, interracial marriage has not been a problem in the last 3000 years.

Most of us on the right thought the polygamy was the next cause for the left. But early info from big liberal colleges and other progressives show that doing away with genders is next on tbeir agenda. There will be no such thing as men or women. You are what ever you say you are that day, and society will be forced to comply.

So these items lead me to wonder:-What is the meaning of marriage beyond what benefit(s) the state endows to it?-What is the state's interest in coupling and how does that relate to the states interest in procreation and child rearing?-Why should those who for religious (or other) reasons have a different view of "what makes a marriage" care about what the state says a marriage is?-Is the demise of marriage (if that's what's slowly happening) good or bad for women? for men? for children?

"What is the state's interest in coupling and how does that relate to the states interest in procreation and child rearing?"

I'd phrase that differently ... What is the people's interest in state sponsorship of coupling,procreation and child rearing?

Movies and literature, from "The Parent Trap" to "Cinderella" indicate that people in this culture consider being raised by both biological parents to be what children want and what's best for them. It seems reasonable to say that society places some value on that situation.

Everything that MnMark said about gay marriage was already said when interracial marriage was legalized in America. People found (still find?)that to be "repulsive and abnormal." Even today comments (usually whispered) are made about how it isn't proper for children to be "indoctrinated" into thinking that inter-racial marriages are acceptable.

Gee what a dumb argument.

Marriage isn't a matter of feelings or opinions, it's a concrete thing deriving from human identity.

It is not a religious thing. Before Jesus was born, marriage was male-female. Before Moses saw the burning bush, marriage was male-female. Cultures that never heard of either Jesus or Moses knew this. Marriage is what it is not because any religion says so, but because it arises from human experience.

So the no-gay-marriage answer is not the same as no-mixed-race-marriage.

For one thing, folks who disapproved of mixed-race marriage don't claim that such a marriage is a sham; it's the fact that it really is marriage--i.e., it can, and likely will, yield children--is precisely why they don't like it!

Folks who reject this move do so because it's a sham. Two people of the same sex cannot enter into marriage. Of course, I don't object all that much if people play pretend on their own; but that isn't what's going on here.

It's one thing for the state to regulate something; it's another for it to claim the right to define what that thing is.

Marriage was not invented by government; it would exist even if government did not. But it is necessary to regulate it for good order.

If government has the power to determine what marriage is--which is the power asserted by this action--where does this lead?

Also, doesn't this create a favorable setting for a legal challenge against the law mandating marriage be monogamous?

While legal recognition of marriage as heterosexual is rooted in human nature itself, the legal restraint on multiple partners is not. That actually is a religious value, arising from Christianity. Muslims do not hold to a monogamous definition of marriage, for example.

For those who like to sue, does the state moving from a natural-law understanding of marriage to a positivistic one ("it is whatever we have the votes to say it is"), doesn't this make a constitutional challenge to this purely arbitrary re-definition of marriage much more promising--and justifiable?

chuck said:There was a late night discussion on your blog about this. Basically the gay crowd here, while very polite, gave a big FU to religous institutions. Saying homosexual rights trumps religous civil rights.

I read the entire thread this morning and I didn't see "a big FU" in there. I saw many, gay and otherwise (I'm guessing here folks) applaud the bill. I certainly noted one of our gay regulars, Palladian, having a decidedly different viewpoint.

Fr Fox...As food for thought, did you see the story where the French government passed a dispensation to legally approve of a dead man's fiance being declared to be his wedded wife, with a ceremony and all of that. That is touching, as is the heart throbs from desperate gay lovers, but can "marriage" be said to take place between a woman and a dead man?

Fr Fox...As food for thought, did you see the story where the French government passed a dispensation to legally approve of a dead man's fiance being declared to be his wedded wife, with a ceremony and all of that. That is touching, as is the heart throbs from desperate gay lovers, but can "marriage" be said to take place between a woman and a dead man?

I did see that; weird.

I can, however, see a kernel of a valid point beneath all that weirdness, and it would be this: not that someone can legally marry a corpse; but that someone could seek recognition of a marriage having been real in the past, but not publicly recognized.

Peter;from the Fukayama piece:people will return to religion not necessarily because they accept the truth of revelation but precisely because the absence of community and the transience of social ties in the secular world make them hungry for ritual and cultural tradition. They will help the poor or their neighbors not necessarily because doctrine tells them they must but rather because they want to serve their communities and find that faith-based organizations are the most effective means of doing so. They will repeat ancient prayers and re-enact age-old rituals not because they believe that they were handed down by God but rather because they want their children to have the proper values, and because they want to enjoy the comfort and the sense of shared experience that ritual brings. In this sense they will not be taking religion seriously on its own terms but will use religion as a language with which to express their moral beliefs.

Fr Martin Fox, by what means did the state determine that divorced persons were free to remarry, contrary to the teachings of your church?

I don't recall asking the state to match its regulation of marriage to all the teachings of my church. Can you cite where I said such a thing?

I said very pointedly that marriage is a union of a man and a woman as matter of universal human experience. If there were no Catholic Church, if 100% of all human beings agreed that God did not exist, because we'd somehow proved that absolutely...then nothing in my assertion about what marriage is would be undermined. I have not made the argument as a matter of religious truth.

Peter Hoh said...

Fr Martin Fox, according to you, can two people, previously married to other people, enter into a real marriage?

If I were to divorce my wife and marry my mistress, would my second marriage count as a real marriage?

Are you asking me if it's a "real" marriage under natural law or under church law?

We can all agree that water is dry. We can write it in the code, change the meaning in every book ever written, abolish the word wet from use, strike it from the dictionaries. But water will be wet and gay marriage will not be marriage.

I am not, by the way, opposed to whatever it is they are doing or hoping to do and they can call it whatever it pleases them to call it and be given whatever rights inure to those men and women who choose to marry. But it will not be marriage.

We have reached that sad point where a large number subscribe to the notion that "reality" may be decreed by arbitrary vote.

But, although there are no doubt many sheep who will mindlessly follow, for those of us who are not sheep, far from gaining societal respect for "same-sex marriage" or "gays" in general, all that is accomplished by actions such as these is to further destroy any vestiges of respect for government that remain.

and, if I may add to your point, this only leads to greater conflict between factions in society.

My own brother is one who terms it "bigotry" to say that marriage is a union of man and woman. That was the sentiment expressed by Rep. Barney Franks; it will be expressed by many others in years to come.

Soon we'll have Canadian/European style "hate speech" laws that will make it illegal to express support for traditional marriage. Next step after that - internment. Gas chambers to follow. Don't tell me I didn't warn ya.

On one hand I can't stand anti-gay bigotry that emanates from right-wing Evangelical circles. On the other, the left-wing gay agenda is not about getting freedom, but about destroying traditional families.

Surely sane people can see this. Surely sane people will scream - STOP THIS.

Take Lady Gaga. Her stated purpose is to convert everyone to gay-dom. She cherishes gays endlessly in her songs and has not one positive thing to say about heterosexuals. FUck she's even stated that there's a gay man inside her just waiting to "bust out". This is America's #1 pop culture icon. Think about that.

Also I'd expect gay couples to get priority in adoptions now. After all, it's only fair to redress past discrimination and who cares about the kids anyways? I'm sure growing up with 2 daddies is perfectly "normal".

It's a BFD because it also insists on maximal religious liberty for those who conscientiously oppose marriage equality. A gay rights movement that seeks to restrict any religious freedom is not worthy of the name.

No doubt the Morman activists on behalf of Prop. 8 in California will be surprised to hear this.

But there will be plenty of people, indeed there is now, who would play the modern-day Thomas Cromwell, all too happy to institute a persecution against people of good conscience. What these tyrants fail to understand, though, is that not a few of us have the institutional memory of Thomas More, John Fisher, et al.

Bender - the whole thing's a farce. Marriage is between a man and a woman, PERIOD. The fact we are even having this discussion pisses me off to no end. Since when did we let the freak-show take over our national conversation?

Divine judgment by Yahweh was then passed upon Sodom and Gomorrah along with two other neighboring cities that were completely consumed by fire and brimstone. Neighboring Zoar was the only city to be spared during that day of judgment.[Deut.29:23][Gen.10:19]

Fr Martin Fox, with regard to the New York law, we are talking about civil marriage. The state is not interested in defining what counts as marriage for your church or any other church, any more than the state is interested in determining who is fit to receive communion.

If the argument against same-sex marriage is ground in doctrine, it seems fair to ask that those same standards be applied to remarriage after divorce.

You wrote: "Two people of the same sex cannot enter into marriage."

If you are relying on church doctrine for that statement, then it is also true that two people, at least one of whom has previously divorced a spouse, cannot enter into marriage.

Chuck - The thing is I'm not religious, but the prospect of churches being forced to conduct gay marriages is patently offensive to me. I believe in 100% freedom of association, but I know the left doesn't. But one doesn't need to be religious to understand that marriage is a covenant between a man & woman. No amount of attempted redefinition will change that.

Fr Martin Fox, with regard to the New York law, we are talking about civil marriage. The state is not interested in defining what counts as marriage for your church or any other church, any more than the state is interested in determining who is fit to receive communion.

I've posted twice that I am not making any argument from religious doctrine. If you're not going to respond to the actual points I made--but instead to the points you prefer I made, so they fit your intended replies, then you don't really need me, you can just post the comments you wish I'd make, then respond to those.

If you are interested in responding to what I actually said, it's still available up-thread.

The gay crowd has invented a new civil right....gay marriage. And said that if the Catholic church doesn't suddenly throw out its 2,000 year definition of marriage, they will declare war on the church.

I wrote: If I were to divorce my wife and marry my mistress, would my second marriage count as a real marriage?

Fr Martin Fox: Are you asking me if it's a "real" marriage under natural law or under church law?

By the same standards you applied above when you declared that two people of the same sex can not enter into marriage.

OK, then you mean marriage as a natural reality. I am not an expert on natural law; however, I don't believe anyone would argue that under natural law, marriage is either essentially monogamous, nor is it essentially immutable. So, a natural marriage can include more than two parties, and it can be dissolved.

And I think you knew that without asking, so while you're selectively ignoring my points, while attempting to confuse marriage as a natural reality and marriage as a religious rite, I'm growing skeptical about your motives.

Alex, no church is currently required to marry anyone. This will not change. It has not changed in Massachusetts. It has not changed in Vermont. Churches are not places subject to the laws that govern public accommodation, or however that term is properly phrased.

You would agree that discrimination on religious or racial grounds is illegal, correct?

I suspect that there are still churches/ministers that would refuse to marry an interracial couple. Can you point to any examples of such churches/ministers being forced to perform a marriage?

I am certain that there are many churches and ministers who would refuse to marry an interfaith couple. Can you point to any examples of such churches/ministers being forced to perform a marriage?

Unfortunately for Mr. Hoh, I'm choosing not to follow the script and make my arguments based on divine revelation.

And as far as the state persecuting churches that don't cooperate with same-sex "marriages," here are some possible avenues:

1. Military chaplains are told to soft-pedal what their religion may say against homosexual behavior. The argument will be just what's been made in these threads: you give up civil rights to belong to the military, same for chaplains.

2. Military chaplains will be expected to officiate at same-sex marriages "in a pinch."

3. Religious organizations that provide gyms or halls for wedding receptions will be targeted as "discriminating" if they don't allow same-sex couples to rent the hall.

4. Someone will ask the state to disqualify clergy from having a license to perform marriages if they don't perform same-sex marriages. The argument will be, they can still perform marriages in their churches, but the state won't give them a license, and the marriages they officiate at will not be legally recognized. The sort of people who seek to outlaw circumcision are likely to think this is a swell thing to do.

5. Schools will, sooner or later, re-tool their discussion of "marriage" and "family" to reflect this sort of legislation; such that those who insist that all the legislatures and judges in the world can't redefine what marriage and family are, become either quaint eccentrics or else "Christianist" zealots who must be confronted. Either way, it's a not-so-subtle sort of social engineering.

Peter Hoh - do you think for one second that the radical gays are not going to try and break the churches? Honestly - they are never satisfied. No "live and let live" policy from their end. They will never stop until organized religion is either destroyed or re-made in the gay image.

Prior to the Great Disruption, all Western societies had in place a complex series of formal and informal laws, rules, norms, and obligations to protect mothers and children by limiting the freedom of fathers to simply ditch one family and start another. Today many people have come to think of marriage as a kind of public celebration of a sexual and emotional union between two adults, which is why gay marriage has become a possibility in the United States and other developed countries.

Since you are pointedly not engaging what I'm actually saying, but rather attempting to make different points, and hoping I can be a helpful foil, please refrain from giving the impression that any of your points are actually rebuttals to mine. I'd prefer not to be your straw man, thanks.

Fr Martin Fox, I'm not insisting that you argue from doctrine. I asked for clarification.

I was very clear. You brought up my church's doctrine--I never did. Your request for "clarification" suggests my posts have raised a doubt about the premises I was arguing from (despite saying, repeatedly, that I'm not basing it on church doctrine).

Feel free to post any of my comments you believe are lacking in clarity on this precise point.

Gaga revealed that she is often questioned why she dedicates herself to "gayspeak" and "how gay" she is, to which, she told the audience: "Why is this question, why is this issue so important? My answer is: I am a child of diversity, I am one with my generation, I feel a moral obligation as a woman, or a man, to exercise my revolutionary potential and make the world a better place."

You see admitting this whole thing is about a REVOLUTION to overturn the existing order of things.

Peter, so my question is....the supporters of gay marriage use that arguement all the time....the gay marriage is a civil right. If you oppose it, then it is no different then if you lived in South in 1940 and opposed interracial marriage.

So if A is true, the gay-marriage is a basic civil right that is no different then interracial marriage, then why wouldn't the liberals prosecute churches who refuse to do gay marriages in the same way they would go after a church that refused to allow an African-American to marry a white or Hispanic?

Not trying to do "gotch-ya". This is a serious question because those of us who support traditional marraige all think that this is the next step for your side.

Chuck66 says: So if A is true, the gay-marriage is a basic civil right that is no different then interracial marriage, then why wouldn't the liberals prosecute churches who refuse to do gay marriages in the same way they would go after a church that refused to allow an African-American to marry a white or Hispanic?

Can you please provide some examples of churches being prosecuted or sued for civil rights violations because they refused to perform marriages that violated their religious customs? If a church refused to perform interracial marriages (or for that matter, interfaith marriages, marriages by divorced people, etc.), it has every legal right to do so, and that would be the case with gay marriage. Now, it's likely that churches that refuse to recognize gay marriage will be criticized by many supporters of gay marriage, but that's called free speech and isn't prosecution or persecution.

somefeller - it's true that churches currently have the right to discriminate. But I sense from the radical gay left that are NOT happy about that at all, and are going to pursue legal action. Remember Lady Gaga has already stated that she's engaged in a revolutionary activity in support of gays.

I appreciate you taking a slightly moderate view, but if you are truthfull, than you are in the minorty for those who support allow gay marriage.

Do you have any support for this contention? Has there been polling done of gay marriage supporters in which the issue of civil marriage has been separated from religious marriage, and in which most supporters of gay civil marriage have supported forcing religious institutions to recognize such marriages? If so, I'll stand corrected on this point but I suspect Peter Hoh (and I, for that matter) am not in the minority of gay civil marriage supporters on the issue of the right of religious institutions to set their own theological marriage rules.

Unless you can provide something more solid than imaginary activists who will stop at nothing, your claim that they gays will go after churches and force them to perform gay marriages is just a hypothetical.

Feminists haven't been able to get the Catholic Church to budge on the issue of the male-only priesthood, have they? Is it for lack of extreme feminist activists?

Feminists haven't been able to get the Catholic Church to budge on the issue of the male-only priesthood, have they? Is it for lack of extreme feminist activists?

It seems to me that gays are #1 on the left-wing totem poll these days and will stop at nothing to destroy the Church. Once they've got churches forced to perform gay marriages, then forcing women priests is next.

I don't know of any churches that discriminate based on race. But you must get my point. We've already had homosexuals protesting inside churches during services. St Patricks in NYC city and St Paul Cathedral in St Paul, Minnesota.

So in other words, you don't have any examples of prosecutions of or lawsuits against churches that refuse to perform marriages that violate their religious customs. And I wasn't just talking about interracial marriage, I mentioned other possibilities (interfaith, prior divorce).

And while I'm not a fan of people coming to do protests at churches, such protests are (as long as they don't break other laws like trespass, etc.) as much a part of the First Amendment as the religious freedom of churches to decide whose marriages they will recognize.

One last thing before I head out....Madison is the epi-center of anti-Christian bigotry in the upper midwest. Let's sit back and see what the American United for the Separation of Church and State have to say. Last I heard they were in Eau Claire trying to end a prayer simple (and really meaningless) at city council meetings. I'm sure those bigots are getting hard nips now thinking about what they can do next. But never against Muslims.

So the free people of a community (or an organization, your unlinked example wasn't clear if this was a municipal or corporate decision) decided that a particular group shouldn't get the benefit of its financial support. More horror.

How can any of you deny that the secular left wouldn't love to use this as a way to attack Christian (but never Muslim) churhes?

Some on the secular left might, but they aren't the majority (and I'm waiting for those poll numbers I asked for Chuck) or from what I've seen even in the mix. After all, the NY law took great pains to explicitly state that there were religious exemptions to the statute, exemptions that already are clear under standard First Amendment jurisprudence. And the Muslim thing is a red herring, as Muslims are a tiny and largely poltically irrelevant minority in this country. (The Muslim vote isn't one that swings elections anywhere outside of Dearborn, Michigan.) If you're going to protest a religious group, you're generally going to protest the ones that have real influence in the electorate.

Face it Chuck, you and people like you who claim gay civil marriage will lead to churches being forced to perform gay marriages have nothing to support your contention. Zip, zero, nada. Just hand-waving and (perhaps willful) confusion about the difference between civil and religious marriage in this country.

One last thing before I head out....Madison is the epi-center of anti-Christian bigotry in the upper midwest. Let's sit back and see what the American United for the Separation of Church and State have to say. Last I heard they were in Eau Claire trying to end a prayer simple (and really meaningless) at city council meetings. I'm sure those bigots are getting hard nips now thinking about what they can do next. But never against Muslims.

More argument by assertion, red herrings and confusion of different issues. Newsflash - a government city council meeting, and religious activity that is or isn't allowed there, is different from religious activity in a church. Like I said, zip, zero, nada. And when you come back, please share with us some examples of the things Peter and I have asked you for, and that you still have failed to provide.

There is no doubt that the next step is some sort of penalty or attack to any church, synaqouge or mosque that because of their religious doctrines or beliefs will preclude their accepting same sex marriage as one of their sacremental functions.

If you say that won't happen you have not been paying attention.

I don't believe for a moment that the people who are saying that will never happen would ever stand in the way of sanctions against someone like the Mormons or the Catholic church or the Orthordox Jews.

The only ones who will be exempt are the Muslims because they are afraid of them.

Trooper, those are just assertions without any basis in fact. It's already been stated above what the basic Constitutional precepts are (thankfully) with regard to the ability of the state to force churches to perform marriages that violate their religious precepts, or more precisely the lack thereof. No one has been able to come up with examples of churches being forced to do that in other contexts, so how would that be the case in this context? And if the concern is that gays may start asking churches to change their rules to allow for gay marriage, well that's just free speech and isn't something that one can reasonably call oppression, unless there is some heretofore unknown right for a church to not be criticized or petitioned.

And Trooper, I'm not insulting or attacking you, I'm saying you are afraid of something that is as likely to occur as the re-institution of slavery in the United States. While there are many debates regarding what's constitutional or not among lawyers and judges, I think stating that religious institutions have the right to perform their own religious practices (as long as those practices don't involve human sacrifice or other obviously harmful activities) under the First Amendment is as uncontroversial a concept as you can get.

Somefeller...No one has been able to come up with examples of churches being forced to do that in other contexts, so how would that be the case in this context?"

Not true. As I understand it the practice of polygamy by the Mormon Church was stopped by the government. I believe the practice of female circumcision is also banned in many jurisdictions by the government. The use of ganja as a sacrament by the Rastafarians is also against the law as I understand.I may be mistaken but I believe that all of these things have happened in the past.

Now you might think all of these governmental regulations of religious practices are perfectly appropriate but that doesn't change the fact that the government has gone in and stopped the sacramental function of several different faiths.

What makes you think that they will treat other faiths any different if enough pressure is brought on the politically correct legislature?

Trooper, your points are well-taken, but I think there's a pretty big difference between the state saying that you can't get a religious exemption for doing things that are otherwise criminal acts (bigamy, drug use, mutilation) and the state saying that a religion must perform and recognize a particular activity like marriage. And if such a power existed, surely it would have come up by now in some context like interracial or interfaith marriages. Granted, there thankfully aren't many churches that forbid the former (and I'm not equating the latter with the former), but that would have come up by now. But I'd agree - it's good to be vigilant in protecting one's rights, however it's also not good to be worrying about phantom threats.

The Catholic Church would not marry me and my wife because I am divorced. My temple's rabbis would not marry us because we would not promise to raise our children Jewish.

This happens all the time. It will not change even if all the lawsuits in the world are brought. It's ludicrous to think otherwise if you know anything about constitutional law (and regardless of how ruthless you think the "radical gays" might be).

There are other ways of grossly violating fundamental religious freedoms than making a church perform a nonsensical ceremony.

Merely requiring them to acknowledge as true that which is, at best, a legal fiction, attempting to force churches to say "yes, Bob is married to Ted," even if they were "married" by the state, under the pain of some legal penalty, is such a gross violation and is all but assured.

The Catholic Church would not marry me and my wife because I am divorced. My temple's rabbis would not marry us because we would not promise to raise our children Jewish.

This happens all the time. It will not change even if all the lawsuits in the world are brought. It's ludicrous to think otherwise if you know anything about constitutional law (and regardless of how ruthless you think the "radical gays" might be).

Of course you may be right. But here's the thing; you're arguing, it seems, that it won't happen because nobody's ever tried it before--and that's an odd argument to make in relation to laws redefining marriage!

Also, ceding your point about the probability of a lawsuit working, doesn't address two related questions. First, will there be attacks directed against the Catholic Church, purely out of bile and outrage? And the answer is, there already been, so it's not hypothetical at all. Second, will someone try a legal strategy not tried before? And the answer is, of course they will--happens all the time.

I've already thought of one: seeking to strip non-compliant clergy from qualifying for licenses to officiate at weddings. The argument will be, fine, let the bigots celebrate their bigoted religious rites, but without any state sanction.

And whether someone would actually be successful in forcing some church to "marry" persons of the same sex, against the will and good conscience of those in that church, is rather beside the point, isn't it?

Merely engaging them in the warfare is the point. Merely weighing them down with frivolous allegations and litigation is the point.

"It's ludicrous to think otherwise if you know anything about constitutional law"

What makes you think they will have any respect for the constitution? I am sure there is a penumbra or something that they find in there. And the tactic will not be that they will force any religion to do any paticular practice...instead they will elinimate the tax exemption or impose some other penalty or punishment unless they play ball.

Why did you think they put those "religious" exemptions or safeguards or amendments in there?

They put them in so they can take them out later. That's how it works.

They could very easily pass a law that states that if you won't marry everybody you can't marry anbody. That's fair right?

If you want to be married in a "proper" legal manner you must be married by the state. Ministers, rabbi's, priests and Iman's will not be able to perform legally binding marriages only their arcane and bigoted rites that will not have the force of law.

I've said it many times, but it bears repeating: the ONLY logical, sensible and rational way out of this mess is for the State to completely remove itself from the institution of marriage. That we've navigated ourselves into ridiculous arguments about the will of deities and natural rights and separate-but-equal doctrine is proof enough that the government has no business regulating and licensing a romantic and/or religious ceremonial.

There should be no such thing as civil marriage, save for some sort of neutral contractual agreement that may be voluntarily entered into by parties at their own discretion.

Marriage, as a tool for secular social engineering, as some busybody right-wingers would have it, is a failure, and has been a failure in that regard since the advent of no-fault divorce. If "marriage" is the ancient, primal and immutable spiritual and constitutional principle of mankind that religious/social conservative types have made it out to be, why are they so afraid that it cannot stand on its own, without the power of the secular government to enforce and define it? If "marriage" is so primal and powerful, it will thrive as a purely religious/romantic institution, unfettered and unhindered by State regulation.

Death to civil marriage, straight, gay or otherwise. Long live the institution of marriage.

Oh, you can be sure that this new "marriage" will be required to be performed by the churches. The traditional churches would be better off to institute a name change, a re-branding if you will, of the marriage sacrament, because it is a sacrament and the state and the gay community cannot perform a sacrament and they are not qualified to participate in this particular one. So, name change. But the newly named sacrament, as always, is available only to confirm and bless the union of a man and a woman.

I've said it many times, but it bears repeating: the ONLY logical, sensible and rational way out of this mess is for the State to completely remove itself from the institution of marriage.

You know that the radical gay left will overreach and seek to interfere with heterosexual marriage. The general public will get so fed up that ALL marriage will be de-coupled from government sanction. After that, there will be registered partnerships for legalities.

I think the Catholic Church can stand up to whatever pathetic and frivolous lawsuits might be brought from the "radical gays" you seem to dread like zombies approaching your cabin in the woods.

And the Church can stand up to demonstrations too. The Nazis have the constitutional right to march in uniform and full fascist regalia through Jewish neighborhoods.

As to the constitutional frivolousness of any claim that clergy will be forced to perform same sex marriages, I'm not going to bother with any exhaustive research here, but here's something I found in about 30 seconds, from Bollard v. California Province of the Society of Jesus, 196 F.3d 940, 945046 (3d Cir. 1999) [what follows is all quotation]:

The Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]." U.S. Const. amend. I. The Free Exercise Clause restricts the government's ability to intrude into ecclesiastical matters or to interfere with a church's governance of its own affairs. See, e.g., Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 U.S. 94, 116, 97 L. Ed. 120, 73 S. Ct. 143 (1952) (explaining that the Free Exercise Clause protects the power of religious organizations "to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine"); see also Kreshik v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church of North America, 363 U.S. 190, 191, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1140, 80 S. Ct. 1037 (1960) (per curiam) (forbidding the courts as well as the legislature from interfering with Free Exercise rights). . . .

A secular court may not, for example, adjudicate matters that necessarily require it to decide among competing interpretations of church doctrine, or other matters of an essentially ecclesiastical nature, even if they also touch upon secular rights. See, e.g., Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 713, 49 L. Ed. 2d 151, 96 S. Ct. 2372 (1976) (reversing the Illinois Supreme Court's determinations regarding several matters of internal church governance, because "religious controversies are not the proper subject of civil court inquiry"); Presbyterian Church v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 449, 21 L. Ed. 2d 658, 89 S. Ct. 601 (1969) [**10] (explaining that "First Amendment values are plainly jeopardized when church property litigation is made to turn on the resolution by civil courts of controversies over religious doctrine and practice"); Kedroff, 344 U.S. at 115 (prohibiting judicial resolution of the question of which church patriarch was entitled to use St. Nicholas Cathedral because it is "strictly a matter of ecclesiastical government"); Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, 280 U.S. 1, 16, 74 L. Ed. 131, 50 S. Ct. 5 (1929) (holding that a secular court may not decide competing claims to a chaplaincy, because "the appointment is a canonical act, [and] it is the function of the church authorities to determine what the essential qualifications of a chaplain are and whether the candidate possesses them"); Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679, 729, 20 L. Ed. 666 (1871) ("It is of the essence of these religious unions, and of their right to establish tribunals for the decision of questions arising among themselves, that those decisions should be binding in all cases of ecclesiastical cognizance, subject only to such appeals as the organism itself provides for.").

Okay, Alex. Show me the evangelicals who are championing this idea that the government should get out of the marriage business.

It's only because they still believe this war can be won against the radical left, but they're wrong. More then 50% of Americans support gay civil marriage. Evangelicals are on the wrong side of history.

How fun. Deviant behaviors, which do not increase the fitness of our species, are being normalized. Well, coupled with the sacrifice of human life (i.e., abortion), this confirms that the viability of our species is not the goal.

Has anyone else noticed the progressive lag in procreation?

We should enjoy instant gratification for as long as it lasts. That seems to be a growing ambition and priority.

I wonder how the evolutionists reconcile the normalization of a deviant behavior with our prime directive to increase the viability of our species. Either our genes have been severely mutatated or people's perception of reality is being manipulated.

It is also quite odd that any individual of dignity would voluntarily choose to be defined by their behavior. It's akin to defining people by their skin color. Maybe old insights were meant to be ignored and legacies employed as a wedge.

One of the most popular (and ridiculous) "arguments" against SSM has been, for a while now, the idea that the gays want to "redefine marriage for all of us."

And yet, in the days since its passage in NY, I've seen an abundance of comments like this one, from Michael:

"I am not, by the way, opposed to whatever it is they are doing or hoping to do and they can call it whatever it pleases them to call it and be given whatever rights inure to those men and women who choose to marry. But it will not be marriage."

…and this one, from Bender:

"We have reached that sad point where a large number subscribe to the notion that "reality" may be decreed by arbitrary vote."

…and this one from Alex:

"Bender - the whole thing's a farce. Marriage is between a man and a woman, PERIOD."

Kind of gives the lie to that stupid argument, doesn't it? I mean, If the people aren't that easily fooled, what was all the fuss about? Clearly folks can define and understand marriage in any number of ways. They just wanted to make damn sure that what those gays are doing never be recognized as marriage… by ANYONE, not everyone.